WASHINGTON, DC, July 17, 2002 (ENS) - A bill has just emerged from the House Committee on Resources that would weaken the Endangered Species Act, prominent scientists are warning.

A letter signed by more than 300 scientists, presented to members of Congress July 10 by conservation biologist Dr. David Blockstein, says the legislation aims to undermine the way science is defined and considered within the Endangered Species Act.

It urges Congress to turn down the emerging bill, H.R. 4840, The Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2002, and instead provide "strong endangered species protections led by the best available science."

The bill, sponsored by Republican Congressmen James Hansen of Utah, Greg Walden of Oregon, and Richard Pombo of California, was passed by the House Resources Committee 22 to 18 on July 10. It now goes to the full House of Representatives for a vote.

Endangered salmon spawning in a Pacific Northwest hatchery (Photo courtesy National Undersea Research Program)

H.R. 4840 requires that every proposed listing, de-listing, consultation and recovery effort aimed at protecting endangered species be subject to peer review by a panel of independent scientists.

While H.R. 4840 says it is being proposed "to ensure the use of sound science in the implementation" of the Endangered Species Act, it includes provision for "commercial" evidence to be considered alongside "scientific" evidence as a basis of determinations on a petition to add or remove a species from the endangered species list.

Language such as the "best scientific and commercial data available [shall be used] as basis of determinations," and "a preponderance of the evidence is based on reliable scientific and commercial information," would be inserted into the Endangered Species Act if H.R. 4840 becomes law.

This type of language would limit the ability of scientists to use the best available science to conserve endangered species, the scientists warn. "Unless peer review processes and scientific methodologies are defined and managed by scientists, they have no credibility," Blockstein said. "The hallmark of science is an independent search for truth - we all must respect that process and support it."

The signatories to the scientists' letter of opposition include members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), including five scientists from the NAS committee that conducted in the mid-1990s an in-depth study of the Endangered Species Act; former NAS Home Secretary Dr. Peter Raven; and several past presidents of major scientific societies.

The bill at issue requires the Secretary of the Interior to appoint an independent review board to review and report on the scientific information and analyses on which a listing action is based before the action becomes final.

The Secretary would also have to provide "specified participation opportunities to any person who has sought authorization of funding from a Federal agency for an action that is subject to consultation regarding its effects on endangered or threatened species or habitats."

Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon (Photo courtesy Office of the Congressman)

The bill's co-author, Congressman Walden of Oregon, said his interest in incorporating a peer review requirement stems from the 2001 summer water crisis in the Klamath Basin. The crisis for 1,400 farmers resulted from a shut-off of irrigation water by the federal Bureau of Reclamation to save endangered salmon, that was later determined by the National Academy of Sciences to have lacked scientific justification.

Walden said, “The crisis forced on the farmers and ranchers of the Klamath Basin is a tragic example of why the peer review of Endangered Species Act science is absolutely essential. The devastation that resulted in that community might very well have been avoided if this bill had been public law two years ago."

"Peer review of data is a concept that is widely recognized within the medical and scientific communities, and it’s time it is incorporated into the Endangered Species Act," Walden said. "Any time the federal government undertakes an effort that can have profound effects on people and communities, it should strive to make sure the data it uses are sound. One of the most effective ways of doing that is to allow independent scientists to review the work of the government and evaluate whether their data support the actions they’re recommending.”

"This is nothing but another attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act," said Susan Holmes, legislative representative for Earthjustice, a national public interest environmental law organization.

Earthjustice along with 19 of the nation's largest environmental groups also have sent a letter to Congress calling H.R. 4840 "a stealth attempt to undermine science and impede implementation of the Endangered Species Act."

The organizations' letter warns that "this attempt to legislate science is tantamount to requiring a doctor to attempt to diagnose cancer with only a stethoscope."

"In addition to causing delays and restricting the use of important scientific tools," Holmes said, "the Hansen legislation would drastically limit the ability of citizens to petition for species protection and it would give special rights to industry."

"At a time when many species hover on the brink of extinction and need immediate, scientifically based action to ensure their survival, this legislation would be devastating," she said.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. All rights reserved.